G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C.

HAINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

8/29/14, 19:02

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

chanrobles.com

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1913 > November 1913 Decisions > G.R. No. 8848
November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HART, ET AL.
026 Phil 149:
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 8848. November 21, 1913. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. HART, C.J. MILLER, and SERVILLANO
NATIVIDAD, Defendants-Appellants.
Pedro Abad Santos for appellants Hart and Natividad.
W.H. Booram for appellant Miller.
Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. VAGRANCY; LOITERING ABOUT SALOONS, DRAM SHOPS, OR GAMBLING HOUSES; VISIBLE MEANS
OF SUPPORT. A person is not guilty of vagrancy under the second paragraph of section 1 of the
Vagrancy Act for frequenting saloons, dram shops, or gambling houses, unless it be shown that he is
without visible means of support.
2. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PUNCTUATION EMPLOYED. If the punctuation of a statute gives it a
meaning which is reasonable and in apparent accord with the legislative will, it may be used as an
additional argument for adopting the literal meaning of the words of a statute as thus punctuated. But
an argument based upon punctuation alone is not conclusive, and the courts will not hesitate change the
punctuation when necessary, to give to the Act the effect intended by the Legislature, disregarding
superfluous or incorrect punctuation marks, and inserting others where necessary.
DECISION
TRENT, J. :
The appellants, Hart, Miller, and Natividad, were arraigned in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on
a charge of vagrancy under the provision of Act No. 519, found guilty, and were each sentenced to six
months imprisonment. Hart and Miller were further sentenced to a fine of P200, and Natividad to a fine

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913novemberdecisions.php?id=43

Page 1 of 5

G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HAINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property

Division

8/29/14, 19:02

months imprisonment. Hart and Miller were further sentenced to a fine of P200, and Natividad to a fine
of P100. All appealed.
The evidence of the prosecution as to the defendant Hart shows that he pleaded guilty and was
convicted on a gambling charge about two or three weeks before his arrest on the vagrancy charge; that
he had been conducting two gambling games, one in his saloon and the other in another house, for a
considerable length of time, the games running every night. The defense showed that Hart and one
Dunn operated a hotel and saloon at Angeles which did a business, according to the bookkeeper, of
P96,000 during the nineteen months preceding the trial; that Hart was also the sole proprietor of a
saloon in the barrio of Tacondo; that he raised imparted hogs which he sold to the Army garrison at
Camp Stotsenberg, which business netted him during the preceding year about P4,000; that he was
authorized to sell several hundred hectares of land owned by one Carrillo in Tacondo; that he
administered, under power of attorney, the same property; and that he furnished a building for and paid
the teacher of the first public school in Tacondo, said school being under Government supervision. The
evidence of the prosecution as to Miller was that he had the reputation of being a gambler; that he
pleaded guilty and was fined for participating in a gambling game about two weeks before his arrest on
the present charge of vagrancy; and that he was seen in houses of prostitution and in a public dance
hall in Tacondo on various occasions. The defense showed without contradiction that Miller had been
discharged from the Army about the year previously; that during his term of enlistment he had been
made sergeant; that he received rating as "excellent" on being discharged; that since his discharge he
had been engaged in tailoring business near Camp Stotsenberg under articles of partnership with one
Buckerd, Miller having contributed P1,000 to the partnership; that the business netted each partner
about P300 per month; that Miller attended to business in an efficient manner every day; and that his
work was first class.
The evidence of the prosecution as to Natividad was that he had gambled nearly every night for a
considerable time prior to his arrest on the charge of vagrancy, in the saloon of one Raymundo, as well
as in Harts saloon; that Natividad sometimes acted as banker; and that he had pleaded guilty to a
charge of gambling and had been sentenced to pay a fine therefor about two weeks before his arrest on
the vagrancy charge. The defense showed that Natividad was a tailor, married, and had a house of his
own; that he made good clothes, and earned from P80 to P100 per month, which was sufficient to
support his family.
From his evidence it will be noted that each of the defendants was earning a living at a lawful trade or
business, quite sufficient to support himself in comfort, and that the evidence which the prosecution
must rely upon for a conviction consists of their having spent their evenings in regularly licensed
saloons, participating in gambling games which are expressly made unlawful by the Gambling Act, No.
1757, and that Miller frequented a dance hall and houses of prostitution.
Section 1 of Act No. 519 is divided into seven clauses, separated by semicolons. Each clause enumerates
a certain calls of person who, within the meaning of this statute, are to be considered as vagrants. For
the purpose of this discussion, we quote this section below, and number each of these seven clauses.
"(1) Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who had the physical ability to work, and
who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; (2) every person found loitering about
saloons or dram shops or gambling housed, or tramping or straying through the country without visible
means of support; (3) every person known to be a pickpocket, thief, burglar, ladrone, either by his own
confession or by his having been convicted of either said offenses, and having no visible or lawful means
of support when found loitering about any gambling house, cockpit, or in any outlying barrio of a
pueblo; (4) every idle or dissolute person of associate of known thieves or ladrones who wanders about
the country at unusual hours of the night; (5) every idle person who lodges in any barn, shed, outhouse,
vessel, or place other than such as is kept for lodging purposed, without the permission of the owner or
a person entitled to the possession thereof; (6) every lewd or dissolute person who lives in and about
houses of ill fame; every common prostitute and common drunkard, is a vagrant."cralaw virtua1aw
library
It is insisted by the Attorney-General that as visible means of support would not be a bar to a conviction
under any one of the last four clauses of this act, it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the
crime of vagrancy to those having no visible means of support. Relying upon the second clause to
sustain the guilt of the defendant, the Attorney-General then proceeds to argue that "visible means of
support" as used in that clause does not apply to "every person found loitering about saloons or dram
shops on gambling houses," but is confined entirely to "or tramping or straying through the country." It
is insisted that had it been intended for "without visible means of support" to qualify the first part of the
clause, either the comma after gambling house would have been omitted, or else a comma after country
would have been inserted.
When the meaning of legislative enactment is in question, it is the duty of the courts to ascertain, if
possible, the true legislative intention, and adopt that the construction of the statute of the statute
which will give it effect. The construction finally adopted should be based upon something more
substantial than the mere punctuation found in the printed Act. If the punctuation of the statute gives it
a meaning which is reasonable and in apparent accord with the legislative will, it may be used as an
additional argument for adopting the literal meaning of the words of the statute as thus punctuated. But
an argument based upon punctuation alone is not conclusive, and the courts will not hesitate to a
change the punctuation when necessary, to give to the Act the effect intended by the Legislature,
disregarding superfluous or incorrect punctuation marks, and inserting others where necessary.
The Attorney-General has based his argument upon the proposition that neither visible means of support
not a lawful calling is a sufficient defense under the last four paragraphs of the section; hence, not being
universally a defense to a charge of vagrancy, they should not be allowed except where the Legislature
has so provided. He then proceeds to show, by a "mere grammatical criticism: of the second paragraph,
that the Legislature did not intend to allow visible means of support or a lawful calling to block a
prosecution for vagrancy founded on the charge that the defendant was found loitering around saloons,
dram shops, and gambling houses.
A most important step in this reasoning, necessary to make it sound, is to ascertain the consequences
flowing from such a construction of the law. What is loitering? The dictionaries say it is idling or wasting
ones time. The time spent in saloons, dram shops, and gambling houses is seldom anything but that.
So that under the proposed construction, practically all who frequent such places commit a crime in so
doing, for which they are liable to punishment under the Vagrancy Law. We cannot believe that it was
the intention of the Legislature to penalize what, in the case of saloons and dram shops, is under the
laws protection. If it be urged that what is true of saloons and dram shops is not true of gambling
houses in this respect, we encounter the wording of the law, which makes no distinction whatever
between loitering around saloon and dram shops, and loitering around gambling houses.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913novemberdecisions.php?id=43

Page 2 of 5

G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HAINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

8/29/14, 19:02

between loitering around saloon and dram shops, and loitering around gambling houses.

November-1913 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 8306 November 3, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. CASIMIRO DEL CAMPO, ET AL.
026 Phil 67
G.R. No. 9044 November 3, 1913 - SEVERINA
FALCON, ET AL. v. ALBERTO BARRETO, ET AL.
026 Phil 72
G.R. No. 9102 November 5, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. RUFINO SANCHEZ
026 Phil 83
G.R. No. 7726 November 6, 1913 - MARIANO
RIOSA v. CLARO VERZOSA, ET AL.
026 Phil 86
G.R. No. 8995 November 6, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. CHUA LUI
026 Phil 94
G.R. No. 8622 November 7, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. ENRIQUE JACA
026 Phil 100

The offense of vagrancy and defined in Act No. 519 is the Anglo-Saxon method of dealing with the
habitually idle and harmful parasites society. While the statutes of the various States of the American
Union differ greatly as to the classification of such persons, their scope is substantially the same. Of
those statutes we have had an opportunity to examine, but two or three contain a provision similar to
the second paragraph of Act No. 519. (Mo. Ann. Stat., sec. 2228; sec 1314.) That the absence of visible
means of support or a lawful calling is necessary under these statutes to a conviction for loitering
around saloons, dram shops, and gambling houses is not even negatived by the punctuation employed.
In the State of Tennessee, however, we find an exact counterpart for paragraph 2 of section 1 of our
own Act (Code of Tenn., sec 3023), with the same punctuation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . or for any person to be found loitering about saloons or dram shops, gambling houses, or houses of
ill fame, or tramping or strolling through the country without any visible means of support."cralaw
virtua1aw library
A further thought suggests itself on connection with the punctuation of the paragraph in question. The
section, as stated above, is divided into seven clauses, separated by semicolons. To say that two classes
of vagrants are defined in paragraph 2, as to one of which visible means of support or a lawful calling is
not a good defense, and as to the other which such a defense is sufficient, would imply a lack of logical
classification on the part of the legislature of the various classes of vagrants. this we are not inclined to
do.
In the case at bar, all three of the defendants were earning a living by legitimate methods in a degree of
comfort higher than the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which the legislature deemed
advisable to make the subject of a penal law. the games in which they participated were apparently
played openly, in a licenses public saloon, where the officers of the law could have entered as easily as
did the patrons. It is believed that Act No. 1757 is adequate, if enforced, to suppress the gambling
proclivities of any person making a good living ar a lawful trade of business.
For these reasons, the defendants are acquitted, with the costs de oficio.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.
Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur the result.

G.R. No. 7956 November 10, 1913 - LUENGO &

MARTINEZ v. JOSE MORENO

GR Houses
VS Gaming
Digest GR

026 Phil 111

G.R. No. 8156 November 10, 1913 - EMILIANA
RACCA v. CATALINA VILORIA, ET AL.

Law GR
Digest GR
Cases GR

GR VS
Hart
Court GR

VS Gaming
Cases GR
Law Making

Back to Home | Back to Main

026 Phil 120

G.R. No. 8957 November 10, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. RUFINO BAYBAY

QUICK SEARCH

026 Phil 125

G.R. No. 8332 November 13, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. PIO MERCADO, ET AL.

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

026 Phil 127

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

G.R. No. 8924 November 13, 1913 - UNITED

STATES v. DOMINGO RIVERA, ET AL.

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

026 Phil 138

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

G.R. No. 8578 November 17, 1913 - UNITED

STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.
026 Phil 133

G.R. No. 6913 November 21, 1913 - ROMAN

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO v. GREGORIO DE LA
PEA
026 Phil 144
G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. WILLIAM C. HART, ET AL.
026 Phil 149
G.R. No. 8856 November 21, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. JULIAN SAULOG, ET AL.

Main Indices of the Library --->

Go!

026 Phil 155

G.R. No. 8106 November 26, 1913 - TEODORO S.
BENEDICTO v. GREGORIO YULO
026 Phil 160
G.R. No. 8908 November 26, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. MODESTO MACUTI, ET AL.
026 Phil 170

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913novemberdecisions.php?id=43

Page 3 of 5

G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HAINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

8/29/14, 19:02

G.R. No. 9118 November 26, 1913 - UNITED

STATES v. FELINO SANTIAGO
026 Phil 184
G.R. No. 9146 November 26, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. PEDRO RAMPAS
026 Phil 189
G.R.
No.
7936
November
28,
CADWALLADER-GIBSON
LUMBER
SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

1913
CO.

v.

026 Phil 192

G.R. No. 8472 November 28, 1913 - ENRIQUE
AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO
026 Phil 195
G.R. No. 8960 November 28, 1913 - UNITED
STATES v. TIN CHO CO, ET AL.
026 Phil 198

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913novemberdecisions.php?id=43

Page 4 of 5

G.R. No. 8848 November 21, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM C. HAINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

Copyright 1998 - 2014 ChanRobles Publishing Company

| Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913novemberdecisions.php?id=43

8/29/14, 19:02

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library |

chanrobles.com

RED

Page 5 of 5